Advertisment2

Google+ Followers

"Believing Christians should look upon themselves as such a creative minority and ... espouse once again the best of its heritage, thereby being at the service of humankind at large." --Joseph Ratzinger

Advertisement

Advertisment

Mystic Monk

Contact Us

Books We Recommend

Blog Archive

A study about to be published from a Kansas State professor shows that 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.

This is reportedly not from some right wing ideologue who can easily be dismissed as a "Nazi" and a "hatemonger" as others have been who have reported similar findings. This is from a researcher whose testimony in the past has been used to actually bolster gay adoption.

AOL News reports that "when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay."

So much for it being solely genetic, huh? One of the most used and effective arguments for gay marriage is that homosexuals are born that way. But that, according to this study, would not seem to be the case.

The author of the study, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm, says the study's intent was to prove that homosexuality is not 100% genetic.

"I just want to know the truth about something," Schumm told AOL News. And he found it a bit odd that we were all supposed to believe that parents can influence their children on so many things except their sexuality.

His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. "I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic," Schumm tells AOL News.

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting; Cameron, for what it's worth, had only looked at three, and offered no statistical analysis in his paper. Schumm skewed his data so that only self-identified gay and lesbian children would be labeled as such.

This is important because sometimes Schumm would come across a passage of children of gay parents who said they were "adamant about not declaring their sexual orientation at all." These people would be labeled straight, even though the passage's implication was that they were gay.

Schumm concluded that children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.

Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.

Schumm states that there's much evidence of gay mothers actively pushing their daughters, to "try out women." Why? Because, Schumm points out that some lesbians "have a hatred of men that's intense." Hmmm. Never would've guessed that.

How long until the words "Nazi" and "hatemonger" are associated with Schumm? Something tells me it won't be long. Something also tells me that the media will completely ignore this study. We'll see.

I would like to know what proportion of persons who describe themselves as having same-sex attraction have been sexually assaulted/abused by an adult of the same sex while a child/minor. In my experience, a very high proportion.

Ahh the good ol' internet troll who's so secure in what he says and does that he hides behind the cover of anonymity like the coward he is. I wouldn't click a link submitted thus if my life depended on it.

In all seriousness, I don't understand the mentality of people who spend their day trolling blogs. I'm not talking about people who offer serious or well-thought out rebuttals. So many folks on the internet spend an inordinate amount of time just being assholes to people with whom they disagree with on politics, sports, culture, etc. Do these folks not have lives? I mean I've got a job, a family, hobbies, etc. I don't have time to waste haunting people who don't like me, and whom I don't like. What a sad existence it must be.

Republicans have flip flopped on this issue. Remember: abortion, gay marriage and other social issues are negotiable to the Republican establishment. The NON-negotiable is to ask the top 1% of the super rich (who are doing phenominally well) with 90% of our nation's wealth to pay one penny more in taxes. It would be better to ask a disabled veteran to go without care than to ask a super rich (socially liberal) republican to increase revenue for programs that many down-trodden need.

The criticisms of Schumm's paper at the link 'Anonymous' provided have to do with the sample Schumm collected. Most of the criticisms are not apropos.

A sample always represents people that "look like" the people on which the sample was collected. A sample does not need to be "random" to be valid. Thus the only question is whether Schumm collected a sample which represents all homosexual households or homosexual households which are different than others in some measurable sense. I haven't read his study yet, so I don't know; but it's clear Box Turtle hasn't bothered to look either.

And then we have the Mark Regnerus study, which backs up Schumm. Regnerus found more homosexuality of children raised by adults who have had same-sex encounters. This includes adopted children, which lends credibility to the thesis that acculturation plays a role in "orientation."

Anyway, acculturation is a bad argument to present to a progressive. They already believe there is nothing wrong with non-heterosexual encounters, so by claiming SSM will increase such encounters tells the progressive nothing worrisome, or gives him news which is cheering.

Anonymous, just a note: the Democratic elite are also phenomenally wealthy - all those super wealthy New Yorkers, New Englanders, Hollywood types, etc. Those like Joe Biden, who according to many mainstream media outlets, gave an average of $350 a year to charity! (For the record, every single study shows that conservatives give much more than liberals). If you imagine THEY are on your side, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn......

For those who say that this study has already been "thoroughly debunked", you might want to review this article....if you are open minded and not a "science denier".http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2012/09/03/the_gayactivist_science_deniers/page/full/

Speaking of people who give a rat's behind about science when it comes to GLBT issues, interesting that apparently the entire New Jersey senate (as well as, ostensibly, their Governor) may have been hoodwinked by the testimony of Brielle Goldani about an "ex-gay camp" in Ohio that in reality only "existed" in the 1999 RuPaul movie "But I'm a cheerleader":